bject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Let's just bury the hatchet. I am too busy right now to spend any
> more time on this.
No hatchets need to be buried. This is not a contest.
It is a sh
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
Let's just bury the hatchet. I am too busy right now to spend any more
time on this.
No hatchets need to be buried. This is not a contest.
It is a shame that you leave the discussion without making any response
to my detailed effort to clear up the confusio
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:48 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I am aware of the type-token distinction, and I think the distinction
> between t
ist.
Ed Porter
-Original Message-----
From: Richard Loosemore [_mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:21 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number
of synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Richard,
I will only r
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can DO them consciously but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can
> intentionally become conscious of the ones you are doing unconsciously.
One every few seconds happens involuntarily, when I try to not let any
through at all; b
You can DO them consciously but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can
intentionally become conscious of the ones you are doing unconsciously.
Try cutting a hole in a piece of paper and moving it smoothly across another
page that has text on it. When your eye tracks the smoothly moving page,
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still don't buy it. Saccades are normally well below the conscious level, and
> a vast majority of what goes on cognitively is not available to
> introspection. Any good reader gets to the point where the sentence meanings,
> not the word
On Monday 22 October 2007 09:33:24 pm, Edward W. Porter wrote:
> Richard,
...
> Are you capable of understanding how that might be considered insulting?
I think in all seriousness that he literally cannot understand. Richard's
emotional interaction is very similar to that of some autistic people
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:48:20 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that "speed-reading" is
> > fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a
> > substantial proportion
On Monday 22 October 2007 08:01:55 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> Did you ever try to parse a sentence with more than one noun in it?
>
> Well, all right: but please be assured that the rest of us do in fact
> do that.
"Why make insulting personal remarkss instead of explaining your reasoning?
On 10/23/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still don't buy it. What the article amounts to is that "speed-reading" is
> fake. No kind of recognition beyond skimming (e.g. just ignoring a
> substantial proportion of the text) is called for to explain the observed
> performance.
An
@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number
of synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Dear Readers of the RE: Bogus Neuroscience Thread,
Because I am the one responsible for bringing to the attention of this
list the Granger article (“Engines of the brai
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007 02:54:53 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
the question is how it can represent multiple
copies of a concept that occur in a situation without getting confused
about which is which. If the appearance of one chair in a scene causes
the [chair] n
On Monday 22 October 2007 06:02:17 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 10/22/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't buy that there is parallel recognition going on.
>
> But that's not what the evidence you cited supports.
>
> The evidence you cited weighs against the _comprehen
On 10/22/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't buy that there is parallel recognition going on.
But that's not what the evidence you cited supports.
The evidence you cited weighs against the _comprehension_ claims of
speed-reading practitioners. That's fine, but I'm not defe
On Monday 22 October 2007 03:35:33 pm, Russell Wallace wrote:
> On 10/22/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Attention -- fovea -- saccade -- serial -- chunking -- frame.
> >
> > Those higher functions have to be there anyway. Is there any evidence that
we
> > can recognize multi
pletely.
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:55 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
> Dear Readers of the RE: Bogus Neuroscie
Richard,
Structure, instances and temporary relations can be represented by uniform
elements through activation set. I'm sure it's addressed in theory of
Hebbian learning somewhere, and I'd be grateful if someone could provide a
reference for description of this process. I tried to describe it
(ad
On 10/22/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attention -- fovea -- saccade -- serial -- chunking -- frame.
>
> Those higher functions have to be there anyway. Is there any evidence that we
> can recognize multiple primitives simultaneously?
Yes. Speed-reading in particular, deliber
On Monday 22 October 2007 02:54:53 pm, Richard Loosemore wrote:
> the question is how it can represent multiple
> copies of a concept that occur in a situation without getting confused
> about which is which. If the appearance of one chair in a scene causes
> the [chair] neuron (or neurons, i
Edward W. Porter wrote:
Dear Readers of the RE: Bogus Neuroscience Thread,
Because I am the one responsible for bringing to the attention of this
list the Granger article (“Engines of the brain: The computational
instruction set of human cognition”, by Richard Granger) that has caused
the rec
ssociates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Edward W. Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 1:34 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: RE: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory a
ious level
activation.
Edward W. Porter
Porter & Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 1:40 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: R
>
> As I said above, it leaves many things unsaid and unclear. For example,
> does it activate all or multiple nodes in a cluster together or not? Does
> it always activate the most general cluster covering a given pattern, or
> does it use some measure of how well a cluster fits input to select
-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 9:37 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Edward W. Porter wrote:
> As Ben suggests,
On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
It took me at least five years of struggle to get to the point
where I could start to have the confidence to call a spade a spade
It still looks like a shovel to me.
Cheers,
J. Andrew Rogers
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http
Edward W. Porter wrote:
As Ben suggests, clearly Granger’s title claims to much. At best the
article suggests what may be some important aspects of the computational
architecture of the human brain, not anything approaching a complete
instruction set.
But as I implied in my last post to Rich
Edward,
I was not criticising you or your opinion of Granger's paper, but only
pointing out that the paper itself had two sides to it: a neuroscience
side (which appeared detailed and well-researched, as far as I could
tell) and a cognitive side (which consisted of a few sentences of
handwa
21, 2007 3:05 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: Bogus Neuroscience [WAS Re: [agi] Human memory and number of
synapses]
Loosemore wrote:
Edward
If I were you, I would not get too excited about this paper, nor others
of this sort (see, e.g. Granger's other general b
>
>
> The questions you ask are not worth asking, because you cannot do
> anything with a 'theory' (Granger's) that consists of a bunch of vague
> assertions about various outdated, broken cognitive ideas, asserted
> without justification.
>
>
> Richard Loosemore
>
Richard, you haven't convinced
Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Loosemore wrote:
Edward
If I were you, I would not get too excited about this paper, nor others
of this sort (see, e.g. Granger's other general brain-engineering paper
at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rhg/pubs/RHGai50.pdf).
This kind of research come
Richard,
I was not citing this article as Gods truth, but as an extremely
interesting hypotheses that seems to have backing in brain science. But
to be fair I gave no clear indication of that.
I have read enough papers attempting to assign various cognitive functions
to various parts of the br
Loosemore wrote:
>
> Edward
>
> If I were you, I would not get too excited about this paper, nor others
> of this sort (see, e.g. Granger's other general brain-engineering paper
> at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rhg/pubs/RHGai50.pdf).
>
> This kind of research comes pretty close to something that de
33 matches
Mail list logo
